Individuality At The End Of The Internet
Photo by Malishka Shaikh-Kannamwar
Calling it the end might seem dramatic, but there aren’t many other ways to describe the current state of the internet. The Dead Internet Theory claims there are more bots on the internet than humans, and with the way AI is rotting all our algorithms, this has never been truer. You could be the most media-literate technology user, informed on all the telltales of AI-generated content, and still not be able to identify it anymore. This is because, as humans, we presuppose all content we consume is produced by other humans. We don’t imagine we are sharing our social spaces, and, by extension, the internet now, with human-mimicking robots, but we inadvertently are. While such content is prompted by a person (if at all), it is still produced off of the machination of a robot stereotyping and emulating the talents and likeness of real people to recreate a largely contrived version of it. Influencers post content which, while it may be actively filmed and edited by them, might still have been an idea generated from ChatGPT or captioned with the help of a similar AI software. People are more likely to opt for technical aid when available rather than trying first-hand to do every part of the process themselves, which eventually eliminates the humanity behind content, and automatises the internet into a factory to indiscriminately churn out slop for. This not only bastardises content creation, but also makes it difficult to hope for originality at all.
In the face of such hopelessness, Amelia Dimoldenberg hosted a panel with Bisoye Babalola of Holiday Club, Ione Gamble from Polyester Magazine and Tom Austin a.k.a Niko B to discuss The Future of Digital Media. This panel, more than anything else, revived collective hope in the internet because of how much it serves us as a community. Amelia opened the conversation by remarking how most of our interactions now are just “sending videos to each other”, whether it is something funny or interesting or even just informative, sharing media with each other has become a large part of our generation’s communication and connection with each other, interpersonally and universally. Someone could reference the Road Work ahead Vine in a room full of strangers and at least one person would still recognise it and, through it, develop a sense of baseline familiarity with them. Bisoye reminisces on one of her first memories of a bonafide “viral” moment being Soulja Boy’s ‘Crank That (Soulja Boy)’ where everyone unanimously knew the dance as integral cultural knowledge. Similarly, Tom referenced YouTubers like Zoella and Smosh who, now, feel quintessentially 2000’s in a very singular way. It’s important to remember that a big part of these cultural moments was their relatability as very human content creators who filmed their ideas on their own through local means. Community, therefore, inevitably sits at the center of their success. This is also what becomes the most compromised in the current age of the internet.
Amelia then asked the panelists if they believe that the internet is still a place for the kind of “independent exploration” that cemented these early creators’ online identities, since most content creation seems lost to SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) and algorithm visibility now. Everyone is at the mercy of whichever randomised factor lets their content be seen by the most amount of people, as everything has gotten a lot more monetised. As a consequence of capitalism, the internet has become a lot less democratised too. To this, Ione responded that “the internet is still great”, we just have to “put more effort in finding the good things” and escape the echo chamber built by algorithmically-pushed content.
All panelists also agreed on the importance of community in sustaining this independent exploration of creativity. Tom harped on the relatability factor by discussing how his audience comments under his content as if he is their “mate”. There is a casual, no-pretence access that is awarded to the audience of creators in the public eye due to this image, which allows, to an extent, a re-democratisation of content. Ione agreed and added that it is important to “meet your audience where they are”, as did Tom, who believes that it is crucial to observe the audience’s reactions to everything and create accordingly. This penetrability and space for input is probably why these creators stand out right now in the face of AI-generated accounts that automatedly send you links to spam at the misclick of a button. Ione spoke about forging a physical community by hosting events and forming group chats where members of Polyester interact with each other and can have a say in its creative decisions, while Bisoye reiterated the need to pivot according to what the audience wants if being consistent with your choice of content isn’t working. Centering the online community that interacts with your content, therefore, becomes paramount not only in the success of said content, but also in your longevity as a creator. AI can replicate patterns, not manners, of connecting with each other. When art is created by real people, it will always only be completed when it is received by a community of other real people too.
It becomes tricky to understand success in the industry when it can so often be fixed by rapid production (which is also something that is unfortunately easily conquered by AI). Since algorithms mostly only reward influencer trends and repetition in form, it feels redundant to try deviating from the prescribed formula, however to respect the discipline (as it has quickly become one), you must have faith in creativity. Tom proposes serving the algorithm what it most loves from time to time, while sticking to your vision throughout. Bisoye contemplated how choosing what to post never feels completely independent of algorithmic factors, since platforms like YouTube now pay creators to avoid them putting their content behind another paywall. This is where audiences have to be conscious about algorithm-fed content once again. It is important to sort through monotonous trends if that is all you are being served, by choosing to swipe away or even clicking ‘not interested’ on the video.
At the end of the day, the power of directing content is still very much in the hands of the audience. It’s easy to sacrifice brand integrity in pursuit of monetisation when it comes to brand deals, which made Amelia beg the question: “Do brands rule the internet”? Creators can’t ignore the need to monetise their content since that is a huge, if not the only, source of income for many. This becomes complicated when many multinational corporations’ values and politics don’t always align with the creators’ and especially their audiences’. Ione speaks our instinctive reaction into the conversation, that of becoming very cynical of brands, especially since they’ve begun personifying themselves through social media and commenting under viral videos for traction. Generally, everyone’s algorithms are also heavily punctuated with ads interjecting their feeds every so often, which makes people increasingly weary of big corporations trying to become hypervisible. It’s hard to not feel like prey of consumerism while unassumingly swiping through stories and seeing a very obvious Uber Eats ad. We are always being subliminally exposed to these promotions, whether it is directly through the brands or them doing it through our favourite content creators, which subconsciously compels us to exercise our purchasing power. Amelia spoke about how keeping Chicken Shop Date ad-free was a decision she had to actively maintain in order to not lose her audience while attempting to pander to their spending power, instead of simply entertaining them. This choice is not one most can afford though, which is where Ione and Bisoye underscore the nuance of having to select advertisers whose values align with them even while trying to sell their audiences something.
It’s clear that audiences still have faith in the internet as a platform for original creation, especially with the new generation of filmmakers like Curry Barker and Kane Parsons who grew up on the internet and went on to deliver 2026’s biggest blockbusters. At the end of the day, digital media is a form of storytelling and people still care about the story, with the popularity of shows like Heated Rivalry and The Summer I Turned Pretty only being further proof of this, where young people have been able to access the culture of TV watching again through internet fandom culture. When asked if they feel positively about the future of the internet, everyone on the panel had a similar response: balancing acknowledgment of how “everything is politically censored or commercially motivated which is decreasing the democracy” as put by Ione, with the reminder of the fact that the internet is still largely good.
While the discussions on the panel were enough to reinstate my faith in content creation and defining your own space on the internet, neither Amelia nor the other panelists directly address the debilitating threat of AI. While it is tricky to try tackling something so structurally detrimental on an individual level, it is also interesting how this concern could have been handled by this panel since they have always been ahead of the curve when it comes to making and sustaining their vision. Even though they are all independent creators, but also especially because of that fact, the audience would expect more from their ability to answer about something that is so universally looming. At the very least, a bare-bones reiteration of the concern would have been enough to make the talk feel better-rounded and rooted in the immediate reality. Acknowledging Capitalist threats, while needed, is also very 2015 compared to where we are now. According to the panel, the future of Digital Media feels airbrushed and naively sweet. Unfortunately, the world is changing quicker than we can say “Amelia Dimoldenberg: The Future of Digital Media”, and watching the successful exemptions talk about how they grew does as little for the ones that didn’t make it as it does for those who probably won’t make it given the online environment now.
Edited by Ainhoa Aron, Literature Editor
Comments